The “Hurricane Sandy is caused by global warming” Tabloid Climatology™ affliction gets out of control on MSNBC in a Chris Matthews interview with Dr. Michael Oppenheimer:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well Professor [Michael] Oppenheimer, back in the 60s, we calls such people pigs. Pigs. No, really. They don’t care about the planet, they don’t care about the destruction of war. All they want is what they got, their stuff, and they want more of it. Is that what we’re facing here, just greed? I’m not talking about the guy at the coal mind, that’s hard work. I’m talking about people who won’t listen to you, won’t listen to science because they want more stuff.
OPPENHEIMER: Listen, Chris, I’m not into name calling here. I think —
MATTHEWS: Well I am.
The hate is extraordinary. I wonder if Chris Matthews realizes that he just insulted a good portion of the USA populace that is skeptical about AGW?
And, with a salary of $5 million, I wonder how much “stuff” Chris Matthews has compared to the average viewer he foams to.
Watch the video at Real Clear Politics: Global Warming Deniers Are “Pigs”
“Ma always said, `Stupid is as stupid does'”.
Chris Matthews has been going off the deep end by being infected by the dross at MSNBC for about two years now. He used to be at least half reasonable. Now he’s just mean spirited and ignorant. Maybe he did burn brain cells in the ’60s but most of it has to do with ‘lie down with dogs, come up with fleas’ syndrome. Its groupthink at its worst, and he doesn’t even realize hes affected.
He is just the the polar opposite of some of the idiots on Fox. Sort of like the annual swings in Artic-Antarctic ice caps, the truth about climate is found by ignoring them both.
Re; Travolta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oI80A_tPlI&feature=fvwrel
“Do as I say not as I do..”
Yes I saw that interview too with Markey and the profiteering academic global warming scaremonger Dr. Michael Oppenheimer. The good professor is smiling and seems to be very happy and content with the havoc and destruction that was caused by Sandy despite himself living in the same area.
Oppenheimer referred in an article written by AP’s Seth Borenstein to the hurricane which struck the same are in 1821, while claming that Sandy had a higher surge because of global warming. He forgot to tell that that storm struck during low tide while Sandy struck during high tide.
I don’t know if he has heard about the Dalton Minimum which occurred during the same time as the storm of 1821.
It has become quite apparent that during low solar activity the jet stream becomes more twisted with big bends which was what happened in this case because of a big attack by a cold air mass targeting the south eastern US. As a result the hurricane was sucked in perpendicular to land over New Jersey.
If anything, cold weather should increase the likelihood of events like this.
Hi Kelvin Vaughan
Well the point is that extreme events (Sandy, droughts etc) are likely to become much more frequent in a warming world. SLR will make the storm surge from a Cat 1 the same as a more severe hurricane in the past. Which means that when a big hurricane hits, the effects will be that much more severe.
The 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum was probably unmatched for thousands of years. The problem is that we have seen rapid climate change in the past (e.g lateglacial times) and we sure don’t want to have to live through times like that. Much of those changes were driven by melting of ice sheets (which we are doing now) and subsequent reorganization of the oceans and change happened on less than decadal timescales. This would be catastrophic if it happened now. A simple risk management approach would be to say that AGW is happening, it’s potentially catastrophic and we should therefore reduce the risks by reducing emissions. Simple isn’t it?
News just in……hurricane death toll rising. We must act now!!!
Why didn’t those pigs care?
Monty says: October 31, 2012 at 6:29 am
“….almost certainly at least partly…..
Gotta love a scientifically certain viewpoint.
I’m pretty sure storms like Sandy have happened before, there just were not so many (if any) buildings in the way.
Back in the 1950s hurricane Sandy would have been a mid-strength hurricane that missed landfall on the US coast after doing its damage in the Caribbean. It would have degraded to tropical storm before it was north of Florida and dissipated in the Atlantic as it drifted eastward.
It is the much warmer surface waters of the Atlantic that maintained and even strengthened the storm as it moved up the East American coast and the ‘wobble’ in the jet stream that pushed it back onto the coast.
Both of these factors are the result of AGW.
So AGW did not cause hurricane Sandy, but it did increase its duration at near hurricane strength and divert its path onto the coast.
REPLY: And your proof of this conjecture is what? – Anthony
After the first presidential debate Chris was LITERALLY foaming at the mouth.
Monty says: October 31, 2012 at 6:46 am
“…… the effects we are seeing now (Sandy? Arctic sea ice? Moscow heat wave? Midwest drought?) are caused by 0.8C warming….”
Monty, that is an incredibly bold statement there.
Given that all these things have all happened in the past without the help of AGW, do you think grasping at one straw (one hurricane) will be convincing to anyone except those ‘already programmed’?
With the topic of AGW and climate change, we have a science which has put forward a plausible theory, ‘proven’ it by computer modeling, and is in the early stages of data collection.
“I’m talking about people who won’t listen to you, won’t listen to science because they want more stuff.”
Well I’m talking about academics and experts who think they are uniquely godlike and can decide how much “stuff” everyone else has, and what they eat, and can set the population and temperature of the entire planet.
I’m talking about academics and experts who claim there is too much “stuff”, and who congratulate themselves that they are seeking the “public good” and saving everyone else from “over consumption” and “materialism.”
I’m talking about experts and academics who use science to claim outrageous precision and insight into nature after counting a few molecules, and proceed to then use science for advocacy to take away “stuff,” like water, cattle, crops, and electricity from people.
Hi Philip
Yes, and what was the global SLR during the interglacial? 4-6m higher than now. In addition, while some parts of the globe were clearly warmer than now, overall the temperature was only about 1-2 C warmer than now (with some parts of the globe cooler). There was no ‘tipping point’ because the forcings weren’t going up continuously like they are now. Eemian interglacial (like all of them) was driven by orbital forcing.
By the way, I don’t believe in Venusian ‘runaway’ but it’s clear that we are in for a pretty unpleasant time.
Chris’ theme song…
@Zeke,
It is getting ridiculous, if not downright insane. Everywhere I look media sites are acting like this is the end of the world… for a cat 1 hurricane. Everyone’s forgotten Irene? Or the “Long Island Express” of the 1930s? Just… what’s happening to the mental fortitude of our race, or the rational skepticism of our founders of science? This is like mental rabies.
Pigs, are we? Don’t care about the planet do we?
We have a timer thermostat to reduce heating fuel consumption, upgraded windows with triple glazing and double ‘low E’ coatings, have no A/C (not really needed in Calgary anyway), use rainwater barrels for garden needs, dual flush (6/3 litre) toilets and low flow shower heads, separate out compostables and recyclables from our garbage, I walk to work while my wife either cycles or takes public transit, we do laundry once a week using a cold/cold cycle, and run the dishwasher only after we start running out of spoons or bowls, we use cloth grocery bags, CF or even LED lights wherever possible and turn them off religiously when not in use… and yet I still cannot bring myself to believe in CAGW hypotheses whose principal predictions are not coming to fruition.
Markx quoted me: Monty says: October 31, 2012 at 6:29 am
“….almost certainly at least partly…..
Gotta love a scientifically certain viewpoint.
I’m pretty sure storms like Sandy have happened before, there just were not so many (if any) buildings in the way”.
Well, Markx that’s what being a scientist is all about…recognizing uncertainties. Would you have rather I said ‘Sandy was definitely caused by AGW’? If I had, all the ‘skeptics’ here would have jumped on me.
And what do you mean by “I’m pretty sure”. Doesn’t sound like you are a scientist!
The whole point about these events is that they are extremely rare….it’s only the forced climate that is making them more common. No doubt, even if we had a hundred Sandys the ‘skeptics’ here would still argue until they are blue in the face that there is no AGW. I mean, some people still think the moon landings were faked!
izen says: October 31, 2012 at 8:25 am
“….It is the much warmer surface waters of the Atlantic that maintained and even strengthened the storm as it moved up the East American coast and the ‘wobble’ in the jet stream that pushed it back onto the coast….Both of these factors are the result of AGW….”
Amazing insight you have there izin.
I guess in the southern hemisphere AGW causes the opposite effect.
1950 to 1959 approximately 25 cyclones (hurricanes) crossed the eastern Australian coast, one as far south as Coffs Harbour (Lat 30 degrees S) and 4 hitting near Brisbane (Lat 27 S) … and the 1940s were worse.
However, from 1997 to 2006 only 12 cyclones crossed the eastern Australian coast, and the southernmost hit at Mackay (Lat 21 S).
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/cyclones.cgi?region=aus&syear=1950&eyear=1959&loc=0
1) People like Chris will say ANYTHING for ratings. He says it. We respond. Just like he wanted.
2) I suppose all those hurricanes in the 1800s were caused by….what?
Hurricane Sandy was spectacular in many respects, not least its geographical size. But the “superstorm” was a co-incidence of a full moon, a large Cat1, a couple of blocking pressure areas and a few temperature anomalies. CO2 does not alter the waxing and waning of the moon ( the last time I checked )
How apposite that the ad below this post is for Listerine mouthwash…
“CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well Professor [Michael] Oppenheimer, back in the 60s, we calls such people pigs. Pigs.”
Matthews makes up his own history. If you were an adult in the Sixties, you know that the slur “pig” was universally reserved for the police. The only reason people watch his show is that they expect his head to explode any moment.
The so-called Superstorm event manufactured by the news media is a gift to Alarmists but especially to Al Gore. The use of invented terms such as “Superstorm” takes the discussion out of the realm of science, where sceptics are on solid ground, and puts the discussion in a Gorian lalaland of myth and outright falsehood. That is semantic piracy. It is the Left’s main tool as they ascend to power. Science must defeat semantic piracy or perish.
izen says:
October 31, 2012 at 8:25 am
Is it your contention, that prior to global warming, no hurricane ever struck the NorthEast? If so, history begs to differ.
As to your claim that warmer waters made the storm stronger, what warmer waters?
Matt says:
October 31, 2012 at 7:34 am
Very well said. The South has learned about tropical storms and hurricanes and has learned how to adapt.
Monty says:
October 31, 2012 at 6:29 am
Interesting that some news reports are saying that ‘Hurricane Sandy’ is making Obama look presidential and in charge. This is marginalizing Romney and, with such a short time to go before polling, this may be crucial in deciding the election. Given that Sandy is almost certainly at least partly anthropogenic in origin wouldn’t it be ironic if a climate skeptic in charge of a climate skeptic party lost the election because of AGW!
Wishful and self-delusional thinking, Monty. The irony would be if all the totally unscientific palaver and hype about a so-called “frankenstorm” supposedly partly created by man actually backfired, causing Independents, some of whom might still be on the fence decide to go for Romney.